This debate is complicated because I can see both sides of this argument. I agree with Beck that we shouldn’t give the federal government any more power, but we do need the authority to treat a terrorist like a terrorist. Part of the reason why we aren’t getting information anymore on these attacks is because we aren’t interrogating anyone at Gitmo – instead we are blowing them up on the battlefield with drone attacks. If we can’t interrogate a terrorist to get information because he’s a citizen and he’s opted not to talk, that just makes our job a million times harder to investigate the attack and potentially stop others.

The real question for me though is how did we allow Shahzad to become a citizen, and how can we prevent it from happening again? Are there other terrorists that we’ve allowed to become citizens? If they are conspiring with the enemy, we need a to be able to revoke their citizenship before they commit a crime.

The problem with all of this is that we have gone completely soft on the enemy. We won’t even name the enemy, less kill them. We want treaties and peace agreements with people who don’t want peace. They want to kill us!

Until we get serious about our enemies and actually kill them, we are going to keep running into people who become citizens to shield themselves from having to give up information.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

When we allow terrorists to become citizens we really are in deep pooh. I don't think we should change our Miranda rights definition, we need to do our job screening people before they enter the USA. This is an argument about what to do after the fact. When are we going to wise up?

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/JJWAFS3CTAETTM6GCM4ZA7TNAU don c

When we allow terrorists to become citizens we really are in deep pooh. I don't think we should change our Miranda rights definition, we need to do our job screening people before they enter the USA. This is an argument about what to do after the fact. When are we going to wise up?

jd73

“…instead we are blowing them up on the battlefield with drone attacks.”

“The problem with all of this is that we have gone completely soft on the enemy. We won’t even name the enemy, less kill them.”

Which one of these statements do you actually mean? Because you can't mean both.

jd73

“…instead we are blowing them up on the battlefield with drone attacks.”

“The problem with all of this is that we have gone completely soft on the enemy. We wonâ€™t even name the enemy, less kill them.”

Which one of these statements do you actually mean? Because you can't mean both.

http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

I mean both. How much information do we get from a dead terrorist? It's easier to kill a terrorist than to drag him back to gitmo and get information that could help us prevent other atrocities from happening. Yes, we've gone soft on the enemy.

http://www.therightscoop.com/ therightscoop

I mean both. How much information do we get from a dead terrorist? It's easier to kill a terrorist than to drag him back to gitmo and get information that could help us prevent other atrocities from happening. Yes, we've gone soft on the enemy.

The 2nd paragraph in your article is exactly what we should be looking at. We should deny any citizens their rights, we should look at how this person got through the screening in the naturalization process. O'reilly was dead wrong! Our government should never have the discretion to decide when our citizenship is revokable since they can tie it into any group which they choose to label “terrorist”, which is a loosely defined term as evidenced by their overzealous actions against the crazy militia group, and if given that discretion they would be able to deny any citizen of their Constitutional right, without due process.It’s a failure of government that they are trying to use to increase their power, as if lack of power was the issue- It was not, lack of aptitude and incompetence was.

http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

The 2nd paragraph in your article is exactly what we should be looking at. We should deny any citizens their rights, we should look at how this person got through the screening in the naturalization process. O'reilly was dead wrong! Our government should never have the discretion to decide when our citizenship is revokable since they can tie it into any group which they choose to label “terrorist”, which is a loosely defined term as evidenced by their overzealous actions against the crazy militia group, and if given that discretion they would be able to deny any citizen of their Constitutional right, without due process.Itâ€™s a failure of government that they are trying to use to increase their power, as if lack of power was the issue- It was not, lack of aptitude and incompetence was.

cgpb

The Miranda rights comes from the constitution 5th and 6th amendment. The due process of law may be the most important right an AMERICAN has to protect from undue hardship, persecution or outright abuse from the Government.Having a Miranda Rights read does not bar any criminal, less terrorists, from the government proving a conviction, but it really does guarantee that all Americans have a fair trial.Do not trust any government that tells you to , even on the most abominable criminal attempt, to eliminate An American Citizen his or her Miranda Rights, if the American is a suspect of being a terror. Definitions may come and go and may change what an act of War, or a terrorist mean. After all, we are subjected to the “eyes of the beholder”, but this Constitutional right can't be abrogated from our rights, no matter how dreadful the crime is. Another story is the elements of judgement the government uses to regulate American citizenship, which may be the weakest factor and link in the majority of convicted American terrorists. Another story should apply to non residents or illegals accused of a terror act.I concur with Beck.

cgpb

The Miranda rights comes from the constitution 5th and 6th amendment. The due process of law may be the most important right an AMERICAN has to protect from undue hardship, persecution or outright abuse from the Government.Having a Miranda Rights read does not bar any criminal, less terrorists, from the government proving a conviction, but it really does guarantee that all Americans have a fair trial.Do not trust any government that tells you to , even on the most abominable criminal attempt, to eliminate An American Citizen his or her Miranda Rights, if the American is a suspect of being a terror. Definitions may come and go and may change what an act of War, or a terrorist mean. After all, we are subjected to the “eyes of the beholder”, but this Constitutional right can't be abrogated from our rights, no matter how dreadful the crime is. Another story is the elements of judgement the government uses to regulate American citizenship, which may be the weakest factor and link in the majority of convicted American terrorists. Another story should apply to non residents or illegals accused of a terror act.I concur with Beck.

pparsealot

I am a member of the Tea Party, a veteran, and attend church regularly. According to Homeland Security, my veteran status puts me on the “watch” list. Since I hold to both traditional Evangelical and Catholic teachings I have been labeled by the government a potential source of extreme and dangerous teachings that promote homophobia, racist tendencies, and anti-government sentiments. Being a member of the Tea Party, I have been determined to be a threat to the government, an extremist, a racist (again), a seditionist, terrorist, etc.

If our government determines that through these associations I present a “clear and present danger” to the United States, and my unalienable right of Due Process can be stripped from me, including my citizenship, then we should tremble in fear and bow our knee to this government – NEVER!

I agree with Beck completely here. Like or not this man IS a citizen, and has an unalienable right to due process. Since this man is facing life in prison without parole, why not offer a plea deal that reduces the sentence by “x” number of years for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of other terrorists? I think this form of “bargaining” could yeild just as valuable information (and perhaps better) in contrast to unconstitutionally stripping a naturalized citizen of his basic rights and forcing them to talk without legal representation. This is a slippery slope that I think in our zeal to deal with terrorists we need to make sure we do not open the door to willingly permit government intrusion into the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

pparsealot

I am a member of the Tea Party, a veteran, and attend church regularly. According to Homeland Security, my veteran status puts me on the “watch” list. Since I hold to both traditional Evangelical and Catholic teachings I have been labeled by the government a potential source of extreme and dangerous teachings that promote homophobia, racist tendencies, and anti-government sentiments. Being a member of the Tea Party, I have been determined to be a threat to the government, an extremist, a racist (again), a seditionist, terrorist, etc.

If our government determines that through these associations I present a “clear and present danger” to the United States, and my unalienable right of Due Process can be stripped from me, including my citizenship, then we should tremble in fear and bow our knee to this government – NEVER!

I agree with Beck completely here. Like or not this man IS a citizen, and has an unalienable right to due process. Since this man is facing life in prison without parole, why not offer a plea deal that reduces the sentence by “x” number of years for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of other terrorists? I think this form of “bargaining” could yeild just as valuable information (and perhaps better) in contrast to unconstitutionally stripping a naturalized citizen of his basic rights and forcing them to talk without legal representation. This is a slippery slope that I think in our zeal to deal with terrorists we need to make sure we do not open the door to willingly permit government intrusion into the lives of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

crazee

You are not obligated by law to mirandize someone in order to convict them. It just means that any information you get is inadmissable in court. If you are seeking out information on future plots, then this isn't for criminal purposes. You don't need a confession here(which is what Miranda partially protects you from, coerced confessions), you need information.

Secondly, Miranda dates back..40 years? It's not a constitutional issue, it's a legislative one. If you're an originalist(and Beck is), where do you believe the founders intended for miranda rights? It's not there. Maybe it's in that secret other constitution along with the “right to privacy”. Man, all we're talking is delaying miranda reading until after interrogation.

crazee

You are not obligated by law to mirandize someone in order to convict them. It just means that any information you get is inadmissable in court. If you are seeking out information on future plots, then this isn't for criminal purposes. You don't need a confession here(which is what Miranda partially protects you from, coerced confessions), you need information.

Secondly, Miranda dates back..40 years? It's not a constitutional issue, it's a legislative one. If you're an originalist(and Beck is), where do you believe the founders intended for miranda rights? It's not there. Maybe it's in that secret other constitution along with the “right to privacy”. Man, all we're talking is delaying miranda reading until after interrogation.

http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

So does that allow for the revoking of citizenship? If the law states that you have to read/give a citizen miranda rights, and the government is attempting to change the rules of citizenship not change the law- Where exactly is this a legal issue and not a Constitutional issue. They can work to overturn Miranda, but they'd rather side-step the law as they are trying to do with the FCC and internet.

Please, for all of our sakes, we have to rely on what happens, not what people say. Willful blindness due to partisanship is what they are relying on to strip us ALL of the protections the Constitution provides.

http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie Castillo

So does that allow for the revoking of citizenship? If the law states that you have to read/give a citizen miranda rights, and the government is attempting to change the rules of citizenship not change the law- Where exactly is this a legal issue and not a Constitutional issue. They can work to overturn Miranda, but they'd rather side-step the law as they are trying to do with the FCC and internet.

Please, for all of our sakes, we have to rely on what happens, not what people say. Willful blindness due to partisanship is what they are relying on to strip us ALL of the protections the Constitution provides.

pparsealot

“Due Process” or “Law of the Land,” as defined by the Constitution, serves as a restraining “check” against the 3-branches of government. If a “person” who has been divested of their liberty through such processes that conflict with any provision of the Constitution, the “Due Process” passage serves to “enforce” a given right, in this case – a restoration of liberty. This decision is left not to the legislative or executive bodies of our government, but to the judicial alone, who are given authority to “interpret” and make judgments according to the Constitution.

Criminal prosecutions are governed by the unambiguous procedural technicalities of the Bill of Rights. If a federal prosecution, then it falls under the 5th amendment; if a state, the 14th. These procedural processes have with intention been broadly understood to PROTECT the individual, and ensuring that no person is deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without a fair opportunity to provide for themselves a reasonable defense and legal representation. This protection extends to individuals at both the federal and state level.

The 5th Amendment specifically protects an individual from “self incrimination.” This law and others originated in English Common Law and the Magna Carta in 1215. In 16th and 17th century England, it was not uncommon, prior to being charged or refusing to take an oath of innocence, for the accused to be tortured and forced to confess. This happened frequently to the Puritans, who were coerced and compelled to cooperate thus rendering to English authorities other Puritans. John Lilburne in 1637 refused to take the oath, and his case became a rallying call for reform. The petition submitted to Parliament, and the legal protections it provided were transported to America by the Puritans, and later included in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.

Miranda Rights only serve as a safeguard to prevent self incrimination. Even if Miranda is removed from citizens who engage in terroristic acts against America, they are still protected by the Bill of Rights from undue compulsion to confess, and even more so protected from excessive acts committed against them by legal authorities for the sole purpose of gaining information or admissions of guilt.

Miranda has nothing to do with “detaining” a citizen. Yes, even after Miranda has been administered a detainee may still be interrogated, but the information cannot be used against them at trial. Miranda is considered a “safeguard” that protects a defendant against self incrimination. Also, a detainee is free at any point to waive their Miranda rights.

In this country a citizen is considered innocent until proven guilty, EVEN with overwhelming evidence that indicates culpability. This is the cornerstone of our legal system. Not only did the Founders believe that in order for a guilty verdict be rendered against a defendant, they also mandated that guilt must be determined by “conclusive moral certainty.” So, I think it prudent to follow legal precedent, especially with terrorists, and follow all procedures to the letter of the law AND Constitution. This way we prevent terrorist from being set free, and back on our streets to commit further mayhem, due to “technicalities.”

pparsealot

â€œDue Processâ€ or â€œLaw of the Land,â€ as defined by the Constitution, serves as a restraining â€œcheckâ€ against the 3-branches of government. If a â€œpersonâ€ who has been divested of their liberty through such processes that conflict with any provision of the Constitution, the â€œDue Processâ€ passage serves to â€œenforceâ€ a given right, in this case â€“ a restoration of liberty. This decision is left not to the legislative or executive bodies of our government, but to the judicial alone, who are given authority to â€œinterpretâ€ and make judgments according to the Constitution.

Criminal prosecutions are governed by the unambiguous procedural technicalities of the Bill of Rights. If a federal prosecution, then it falls under the 5th amendment; if a state, the 14th. These procedural processes have with intention been broadly understood to PROTECT the individual, and ensuring that no person is deprived of â€œlife, liberty, or propertyâ€ without a fair opportunity to provide for themselves a reasonable defense and legal representation. This protection extends to individuals at both the federal and state level.

The 5th Amendment specifically protects an individual from â€œself incrimination.â€ This law and others originated in English Common Law and the Magna Carta in 1215. In 16th and 17th century England, it was not uncommon, prior to being charged or refusing to take an oath of innocence, for the accused to be tortured and forced to confess. This happened frequently to the Puritans, who were coerced and compelled to cooperate thus rendering to English authorities other Puritans. John Lilburne in 1637 refused to take the oath, and his case became a rallying call for reform. The petition submitted to Parliament, and the legal protections it provided were transported to America by the Puritans, and later included in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.

Miranda Rights only serve as a safeguard to prevent self incrimination. Even if Miranda is removed from citizens who engage in terroristic acts against America, they are still protected by the Bill of Rights from undue compulsion to confess, and even more so protected from excessive acts committed against them by legal authorities for the sole purpose of gaining information or admissions of guilt.

Miranda has nothing to do with â€œdetainingâ€ a citizen. Yes, even after Miranda has been administered a detainee may still be interrogated, but the information cannot be used against them at trial. Miranda is considered a â€œsafeguardâ€ that protects a defendant against self incrimination. Also, a detainee is free at any point to waive their Miranda rights.

In this country a citizen is considered innocent until proven guilty, EVEN with overwhelming evidence that indicates culpability. This is the cornerstone of our legal system. Not only did the Founders believe that in order for a guilty verdict be rendered against a defendant, they also mandated that guilt must be determined by â€œconclusive moral certainty.â€ So, I think it prudent to follow legal precedent, especially with terrorists, and follow all procedures to the letter of the law AND Constitution. This way we prevent terrorist from being set free, and back on our streets to commit further mayhem, due to â€œtechnicalities.â€

Tyler

To add to Scoop's argument, jd…you also forget the fact that these guys believe it to be the GREATEST HONOR to DIE in the name of “fighting the great satan.” So…to kill them IS to be soft on them for THAT reason as well.

Tyler

To add to Scoop's argument, jd…you also forget the fact that these guys believe it to be the GREATEST HONOR to DIE in the name of “fighting the great satan.” So…to kill them IS to be soft on them for THAT reason as well.

jasper1321

Are you kidding me? There are people who think that this is a radical website. You have clips of Glen Beck on it who if you ask the people in charge is inciting violence. Do you not think that if you give the government this power that it cant be used against you? He is a citizen plain and simple. Unless you plan on blindly following the word of the government no matter who is in charge someone can label you anything they want.

jasper1321

Are you kidding me? There are people who think that this is a radical website. You have clips of Glen Beck on it who if you ask the people in charge is inciting violence. Do you not think that if you give the government this power that it cant be used against you? He is a citizen plain and simple. Unless you plan on blindly following the word of the government no matter who is in charge someone can label you anything they want.

http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

I also agree with Beck… however, Miranda is a made up thing. In other words there is no constitutional mandate for an officer of the court to ensure someone fully “understands” those rights. Too many criminals have been set free because of this false “right.” It needs to be gotten rid of!

Getting off my soapbox… it is the law of the land and until wiser judges than what we've had the last 50 years rule properly against Miranda, American Citizens should, indeed, have their Miranda Rights read to them.

http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

I also agree with Beck… however, Miranda is a made up thing. In other words there is no constitutional mandate for an officer of the court to ensure someone fully “understands” those rights. Too many criminals have been set free because of this false “right.” It needs to be gotten rid of!

Getting off my soapbox… it is the law of the land and until wiser judges than what we've had the last 50 years rule properly against Miranda, American Citizens should, indeed, have their Miranda Rights read to them.

http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

…and get RID of Miranda altogether. It is not the job of law enforcement to educate suspects of their rights. It is the rights of the suspect (and his atorney) to educate himself and the the job of law enforcement to follow Due Process.

http://www.envisionliberty.weebly.com/ Mike Leavitt

…and get RID of Miranda altogether. It is not the job of law enforcement to educate suspects of their rights. It is the rights of the suspect (and his atorney) to educate himself and the the job of law enforcement to follow Due Process.

KeninMontana

“secret other constitution”? The 4th amendment is pretty clear “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched,and the persons or things to be seized”.I think thats pretty clearly a right to privacy. We already have a mechanism in our laws to bypass the right to due process and that is found in Article 1,Section 9 “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This has been done previously under Jackson ( although only in a very limited region) ,Lincoln during the Civil War and most recently under Bush by signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006. You can find information on the act here http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/…I would advise a bit more research on just what you are proposing before you advocate a selective approach on how,when and whom are deserving of due process of law which like it or not the Miranda warning is a part of. You may be the next to be “selected”.

KeninMontana

“secret other constitution”? The 4th amendment is pretty clear “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,and effects,against unreasonable searches and seizures,shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to be searched,and the persons or things to be seized”.I think thats pretty clearly a right to privacy. We already have a mechanism in our laws to bypass the right to due process and that is found in Article 1,Section 9 “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This has been done previously under Jackson ( although only in a very limited region) ,Lincoln during the Civil War and most recently under Bush by signing the Military Commissions Act of 2006. You can find information on the act here http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/…I would advise a bit more research on just what you are proposing before you advocate a selective approach on how,when and whom are deserving of due process of law which like it or not the Miranda warning is a part of. You may be the next to be “selected”.

KeninMontana

I am an “originalist” when it comes to our Constitution, here is something further to consider. Just why do you suppose we have a specific mechanism to amend the the Constitution?

KeninMontana

I am an “originalist” when it comes to our Constitution, here is something further to consider. Just why do you suppose we have a specific mechanism to amend the the Constitution?

Pyrran

Exactly right! This is a lot like the issue of free speech. The only speech which needs protection is speech that upsets, annoys, etc. The only people that need Miranda rights are those accused of a crime. This administration has already called Tea Partiers Nazis and racists. Its just one step away from calling them terrorists and then your right to a fair trial vanishes and you end up in jail as a political prisoner. One or two of those, well publicised, and the rest of us will keep quiet. Just what they want.

Pyrran

Exactly right! This is a lot like the issue of free speech. The only speech which needs protection is speech that upsets, annoys, etc. The only people that need Miranda rights are those accused of a crime. This administration has already called Tea Partiers Nazis and racists. Its just one step away from calling them terrorists and then your right to a fair trial vanishes and you end up in jail as a political prisoner. One or two of those, well publicised, and the rest of us will keep quiet. Just what they want.